Thank you Jazzo for the three dots. They indicate that you are considerate, and recognize that some folk would be offended if you said "ass".

And what that Matthew wrote about what Jesus said about turning a "daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" is certainly strange. It's sorta like reading the funny papers, sometimes you have to think real hard before you find the meaning.

TEd, I'm not denying that there is a real and specific threat out there that needs to be confronted. (namely the disempowering of Al Quada and the apprehension or demise of their leaders, and then some other like groups). But I fear by diluting the specific quest by selfishly and cynically attaching the agenda of the Oil Cartel to it, and making that the secret priority instead of the original goal, the Bushes are igniting a catastrophe beyond the scope of reason. Big Oil and its power has always been what the Bushes were about, and it's their own greedy and foremost agenda beyond any party or national interest. Why do you think Bush, Sr., so cynically left us enmeshed in Somalia when he turned the reins over to Clinton?...because of the new oil reserves discovered in that country. Have we ever gone in to "stabilize" any other African nation when they were hell-bent on slaughtering each other in civil conflict?...no. And I think the new ambivalence by the administration to the capture or death of Bin Laden is a symptom of that. (Unless, knowing the ENRON scandal was about to erupt they let Bin Laden slip away so they had an excuse to keep the war going and cover their butts). But by not focusing all resources on the real threat...the detection, disempowering, and dissolution of the Al Quada terrorist network (with the Bushes so opportunistically finagling the scenario of "response" to fit their self-serving Big Oil agenda), not only do we dilute our focus and render ourselves more vulnerable to future terrorists attacks, but we also spawn a deeper alienation among moderate Arabs and Muslims, and forge a widening gap of hatred instead of working to close it. ("collateral damage" works wonders for spawning new hatred). And you best believe there are already, and have been since before the Gulf War in '92, covert US special forces and agents on the ground in Iraq (many of them US soldiers/agents of Arab-descent who fit right in) with new weapons with accuracies of phenomenal range, just waiting for the "go" to take Saddam out...but they're not going to get that "go" because those in power want this war...just like they wanted it in '92. Why? Who knows? (aside from the obvious, the filling of the coffers of the weapons manufacturers, of course) A friend whose brother who was a Navy Seal knows some folks in the intelligence community, and he was told that before the Gulf War one of these operatives had Saddam in his sights and called in with a plea to take him out...the request was emphatically denied, and what's more...he was told there was a gun trained on him and if he pulled the trigger he was a dead man. They don't want Saddam gone...they want war...it's crazy. And, once more, I ask where is Bin Laden? Diluting our focus from the specific threat is going to cost us, and the world, dearly in the long run.

if Tony Chamberlain Blair doesn't have the stones for it, then we will have to go it alone.

....I do believe that overall the world-view of the USA is preferable to the European (and Arabic) model that is little more than the appeasement of a madman such as Saddam

...the US is trying to export world stability....I firmly believe there's on overarching altruism that much of the world doesn't appreciate

If you truly value "Western" democracy, TEd, then you have to accept that the people of Europe - including the UK in this instance - are making their own decision, which their leaders are (more or less) obliged to follow. That decision is quite clearly against war on Saddam at present, and it is very strongly against the US stepping in to "defend our interests" (meaning to defend what it sees as our interests, meaning its interests).

This is very straightforward and understandable if you put the boot on the other foot. Would you accept the UK dictating US interests, who your enemies and friends are, what is civilized behaviour, what is fair resistance to oppression and what is terrorism? Would you accept the UK taking its troops into parts of the US, assassinating supposed terrorists and destroying towns it assured you supported terrorist activities? I would hope you would have "the stones" to soundly resist such cultural imperialism [I can't think of a better way of phrasing it] and would make up your own mind about what to do next.

True global security is never going to be achieved by anybody pushing their viewpoint whilst dismissing those of other people or countries as irrelevant or somehow unrepresentative. And I say again, the US needs all the friends it can get.

And incidentally, I think it's very questionable for you to compare the current situation with the onset of WWII. Saddam isn't poised to invade anywhere - quite the opposite. Comparisons with the Cold War would be more apt, as there was a situation where a dictatorial government, hostile to the West, had definite control over weapons of mass destruction.

This has been an interesting discussion to follow, but it has become repetitive. People still occupy their original positions and are just enlarging, very ably, on their arguments.

I canít help reflecting that just because there is a problem that doesnít mean there is a solution. There are far too many variables in this situation to be able to truly predict the outcome of selecting any of the choices that exist. Just because we hold an opinion strongly doesnít make it right, it is still only an opinion. However well informed we may think it, it is not fact. Public discussion (not just on AWAD!) can be a very useful way of discovering what the general consensus of the population is, but there is no magic in democracy that makes that consensus correct, although it may become the only choice that will be supported. I am grateful that I donít have to make a choice Ė thatís what we elect able politicians for after all. Now that is a worrying thought.

>>I am grateful that I donít have to make a choice Ė thatís what we elect able politicians for after all. Now that is a worrying thought.

Ah but you do have to make a choice dxb. When you choose your member of parliament or your prime minister (or those Amirican equivalents) you choose the one that more closely reflects your views.

You cannot complain about the way the politicians run things if you do not participate in the procedure. I'm not saying you don't dxb, I'm just making the point that if we don't like what a politician does it is up to us to get him out of there - to make our views heard.

Well, it's come to this. From an Associated Press article in my local paper today, The Press of Atlantic City, headlined, Bush: I'll attack Iraq in my own good time:

>Bush's comments came as U.S. officials met with Iraqi opposition groups intent on overthrowing Saddam Hussein and amid growing unease from members of Congress about the wisdom of taking military action against Iraq without just cause.

On Thursday, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, cautioned against an unprovoked U.S. attack against Saddam. Sens. Dick Lugar, R-Ind., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., have been among Republicans who have expressed concern.

"My own view would be to let him bluster, let him rant and rave all he wants," Armey said of the Iraqi president in a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, indicating a crack in Republican support for Bush's push to topple Saddam. "As long as he behaves himself within his own borders, we should not be addressing any attack or resources against him."<

Well, I'd say that with the House Republican leadership, the president's own party, now dissenting on this, it would be, at least, political lunacy, (if not bordering on the dictatorial) to launch an attack. And with such a lack of support at home, any military foray against Iraq would not seem very viable or resolute in the eyes of the world, and much more vulnerable to resistence in the eyes of those who view us as an enemy. And, then, of course, as mentioned before, there is a little matter called the U.S. Constitution. But, then, when did any of this ever stop the Bushes before? You can't stop a clan who has an estimated $400 billion dollars laundered away from the Silverado S&L banking scandal and Iran/Contra dealings, and whose Patriarch once ran the CIA. If they can't buy you then Daddy picks up the phone and makes you "disappear"...like Cliff Baxter, the would-be "John Dean" of ENRON. Anybody getting the picture here, yet?

Actually, the problem may sort itself out. If I have it right, the US is unable to project anything like the same amount of force in 2002 that it could in 1991. If that is the case, well, all he can do is drum his heels on the floor and call for his daddy!

You can't stop a clan who has an estimated $400 billion dollars laundered away from the Silverado S&L banking scandal and Iran/Contra dealings, ~ WhitmanOneil

the US is unable to project anything like the same amount of force in 2002 that it could in 1991. If that is the case, well, all he can do is drum his heels on the floor and call for his daddy!~ Captial Kiwi

Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.